Friday

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.(Quote by - John F. Kennedy)

I don’t subscribe to the Primal Wound Theory as it's presented and the reason that I don’t is because I was adopted as an infant and I don’t have a primal wound. Not sure one could have a much more valid reason for being a non-believer. It’s basically the same as believing a primal wound exists because one has a primal wound. Except for, my experience negates Nancy Verrier’s declaration that a primal wound is inescapable, universal and that means something.

It means you don’t automatically have a primal wound if you were not raised by your biological mother. Phew, eh?

I am however a believer in adoptee rights. 

I think you can be unwounded and still be concerned with discrimination against adopted persons when it comes to closed records of the adoptee’s own life. 

I think you can be unwounded and still care about kids being born today to parents that aren’t going to raise them. I care very much about who ends up raising them and how they go about it. In fact, I care about how people are raising all kids, kept or not.

Something else I care about is biological parents’ feelings. Their fear, their shame. I believe their feelings should be taken into consideration when opening up records to adoptees. I really do. I’m well aware that the online community say repeatedly that parents, mainly mothers, were not, by law, guaranteed privacy, anonymity. I guess that’s most likely true, I’d be surprised to see a mother pull out documentation proving otherwise. They also say though that mothers weren’t even verbally made promises of confidentiality, not led to believe they’d never be found, led to believe that their secret would always remain a secret.

Don’t believe it.

As with the Primal Wound Theory not applying in my case, I am here to say that my biological mother did believe I’d never find her, that her secret would never be threatened. That it was up to her to decide who in her life would know about me, about what she did 48 years ago and me finding her was “never supposed to happen”. Yes, she was done a great disservice, a disservice I don’t think should be taken lightly.

I’m not sure what the answer is. I’m not sure any legislation will ever be fair to all parties, but I don’t think it does anyone any good to think it’s just adoption agencies and adoptive parents who don’t want open records.

Maybe if we could all just be honest about adoption and how it means different things to different people there could be some progress made.

Not every mother and father wants to be found, regrets having chosen adoption, dreams of the day they will meet their long lost son or daughter. It’s just not fair to perpetuate that type of myth, not fair to anyone, and most especially not fair to the adoptees who yearn to reunite and think it will make everything all better, just as myths and dishonesty are not helpful in achieving open records.

Even though I truly believe we’re the only ones who can make ourselves feel better, it would be nice to get some help along the way and I think a little honesty and a lot more realism would go very far in doing just that. 

20 comments:

  1. This is why opening up the discussions of adoption and how it affects us all becomes so important.
    Here is Australisa there has never been a problem around anonymity and our records have been open for decades.We have found that the vast majority of mothers want to be found or want to find their children.
    Reunion is taken far too lightly, unprepared for largely and the possible issues not looked at productively.There is so much more than can be done to do it better.
    Re the primal wound I'm not getting into that old discussion again,my own experiences are very different from yours. I know also that many of the profoundest effects of adoption didn't become apparent to me until I was in my 60's.
    Great post! Keep 'em coming!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh I definitely had a primal wound, no doubt about that. However, I don't doubt that there are some adoptees who don't recognize such. We are all so different, there is no universal experience. Very few things in life are absolutes, and the primal wound is no exception.

    I totally agree with you that not every adopting out mother/father wants to be found or cares for a relationship.

    I am confused about what you mean re your mother being done a "disservice"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good post. I also do not believe in a universal primal wound to all adoptees, but do not want to argue with those adoptees who do believe they suffer from a primal wound themselves. I do believe that many adoptees suffer from feeling abandoned and have a great sense of loss, but that this comes with knowing that they are adopted and what that means, not something organic that happens with separation at birth. We all have a right to our beliefs, but not to generalize and enforce them on others.

    As to what birthparents want or were told, there are birthmothers who oppose open records, were told or believed that their child could never find them, do not feel surrender was a bad choice. There are probably more of them than we have been led to believe. This is something searching adoptees have to know and deal with on a personal level when making contact. It should have nothing whatsoever to do with adoptee access laws.

    Some mothers were also told that their child could find them at 18 or 21, or that they could find their child then. This is no more true than promises of eternal anonymity. Adoptees should be able to get their original birth certificate no matter what any of their parents wish or believed. It is not the place of the law to be nanny to adults forever.

    How people deal with their own reunions and what the law says are very different things and should not be confused.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with you about the myth of every natural parent wanting to meet his or her child. It's just not true.

    But I disagree very much about natural parents being able to veto their adult adopted children's access to legal records pertaining to themselves.

    There was a time when women couldn't own property, when husbands made all decisions for their wives. Some wives may well have been happy with this state of affairs, but should the laws have stayed the same to protect those women who didn't want to make decisions?

    Some natural parents might have been wrongly promised anonymity, but this was not done legally. I feel for them, and they have every right to choose not to know their children. I don't believe they have the right to hold their children's OBC's hostage.

    It's a delicate balance, for certain.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Von and maryanne : )

    Hi elizabeth, thanks for commenting. What I meant by a disservice was my mother being led to believe it was the end of the story when she gave me up. That she'd never be found. It resulted in 48 years of non-preparedness. That's a long time for me to be prepared and her not. When I put myself in her shoes, I can't help but be sympathetic.

    @ Anon, thanks for weighing in. I too don't agree with anyone being able to veto adoptee access to their own info. It just doesn't make sense if you look at it from a civil right angle. I don't believe though it does anyone any good to pretend it's aparents and agencies who are the sole reason for vetoes and closed records. You're exactly right in that it's a delicate balance which is why I think it needs to be treated as such.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Elizabeth, when you said that you had a primal wound, but you don't doubt that there are some adoptees who don't recognize such, did you mean that they don't recognize that YOU have a PW, or do you mean that THEY have a pw and don't recognize it in themselves.
    Or do you mean that they just don't recognize that there's such a thing as a pw?
    Just curious.




    Oh I definitely had a primal wound, no doubt about that. However, I don't doubt that there are some adoptees who don't recognize such.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hmm..this post is making me think. I frankly don't know if I have a primal wound. Maybe that uncertainty indicates an absence of it? I know for some people it helps greatly to put a term to what they're experiencing, but for me I'm not sure that I want one.

    At any rate, I've been kind of ornery re: adoption issues lately, so I appreciated this post and the big picture perspective that you present.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Campbell, I'm happy to hear that you have not been afflicted with the Primal Wound. Rest assured, you are in good company. I know several people (ranging in age from 30 to 60+) who are adoptees. They too have not been afflicted with either the Primal Wound or the associated Narcisstic Wound. They are happy, successful adults leading productive lives and would actually be insulted if someone suggested that they were primally wounded. I thought you might like to know this!

    Gail

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Soo, thanks. It is a very big picture, isn't it.

    I appreciate that Gail. I too know of other adopted adults who aren't "afflicted", one being my sister whom I know pretty well : )

    I've just today been reading about the associated narcissism angle. I am not completely clear on the connection yet but am still reading up. I've actually read a few interesting assessments of the PW theory today and intend to develop a collection of them in a post to give others food for thought.

    The idea of it being inescapable just doesn't sit well with me for a number of reasons, not the least of which is how it can absolve an adoptive parent for any responsibility in how their child copes with .... well, just about anything and everything.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Campbell,

    Why not read the actual book to get your own perspective on it?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have plans to do just that The adopted ones, although I'm not sure why you say to get my own perspective on it. I already have my own (obviously) and since it's based on Nancy Verrier's own words off her website my perspective will not change.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Campbell the book is not the sum total of just her words on her website, if that was so there would not be any book to sell.

    ReplyDelete
  13. These words on her website speak volumes to me The adopted ones. What she's put in her book after declaring the following can't, and shouldn't, be anything but suspect to me.

    "..the connection between biological mother and child is primal, mystical, mysterious, and everlasting. Far more than merely biological and historical, this primal connection is also cellular, psychological, emotional, and spiritual. So deep runs the connection between a child and its mother that the severing of that bond results in a profound wound for both, a wound from which neither fully recovers. In the case of adoption, the wound cannot be avoided, but it can and must be acknowledged and understood."

    ReplyDelete
  14. I reread that commentary and think about being a mother and how there is so much more to it. It's not mystical, instantaneous. It's concentrated and takes dedication. Trust and attachment is developed, nurtured. Why do we even bother to soothe and entertain if all it takes is conception? If what Verrier suggests is the way it is, wouldn't simply making sure our babies don't starve or fall from a great height be enough? Where does this leave fathers? No where.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "They are happy, successful adults leading productive lives and would actually be insulted if someone suggested that they were primally wounded."

    And happy successful adults (adoptees) can't feel grief?

    I'm not saying anything about the PW. I am objecting to the blanket statement that a happy, successful adoptee cannot feel grief/loss, which ties into your point about the PW.

    By your logic, Yoonsblur shouldn't be feeling the way she does in post-reunion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mei Ling ... I've looked and I can't see where anyone but you has said anything like happy successful adoptees can't feel grief or loss.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Not having PW = happy, productive adults.

    Which can only mean the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm sorry but I just don't see what's been said here in the way you must and maybe that's important Mei Ling.

    What I saw in the comment I think you're referring to was a comment of support, a comment simply saying there are other adult adoptees out there who are happy and successful, do not have a primal wound and would feel insulted at being told they do.

    Nobody said adoptees cannot feel grief/loss. If they did, I'd not publish it.

    Really.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I saw the same thing that Mei Ling sees. I don't know if Mei Ling saw it in your words, but I see it in this comment:

    "Campbell, I'm happy to hear that you have not been afflicted with the Primal Wound. Rest assured, you are in good company. I know several people (ranging in age from 30 to 60+) who are adoptees. They too have not been afflicted with either the Primal Wound or the associated Narcisstic Wound. They are happy, successful adults leading productive lives and would actually be insulted if someone suggested that they were primally wounded. I thought you might like to know this!"

    The implication here is that someone who considers themselves to have PW or, to suffer from adoption loss in another way, will not be happy and succesful and not able to lead productive lives. It is that mindset that is profoundly pathologizing. Keep in mind, I'm not defending PW and have my own critique of it, but I think that to imply that those who don't suffer any loss around adoption are the happy, productive ones is blatantly pathologizing to those who do. I know adoptees who claim not to have PW or adoption loss and they are NOT happy, succesful, or productive people. Feeling or expressing adoption loss doesn't preclude that one will be able to achieve good things in ones life. Likewise, not feeling or expressing adoption loss does NOT automatically mean that one will be able to achieve good things in life or feel happy.

    I know your whole point here is about how PW is pathologizing and I applaud you for taking that stand. But I think if you're going to recognize pathology in one area, you have to recognize it in another. (And please know that I honor your feelings around your life experiences and appreciate the dialogue you open here.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Anonymous, thanks.

    I appreciate what you and Mei Ling are getting at but I really don't think that comment was meant to imply what you both are seeing in it. As I said, I think it was meant to be supportive but what you and Mei Ling have said is a great reminder to take care in how we word things if our intent is not to offend or pathologize one while supporting another. I think we can all agree that it gets tricky sometimes but it's doable and worth the effort.

    I am in complete agreement with what you said here,

    "Feeling or expressing adoption loss doesn't preclude that one will be able to achieve good things in ones life. Likewise, not feeling or expressing adoption loss does NOT automatically mean that one will be able to achieve good things in life or feel happy."

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to flag your comment PRIVATE. I realize commenting can be intimidating so if you have something to say to me you'd rather not have published you're welcome to do so, just make sure you let me know it's private. If you want a reply, leave your email address.

I'm also completely fine with good anonymous comments. I've seen some great ones!